Is that how we're spelling 'discernible' in Bristol these days Lee Hanson? And twice in two sentences too. Tool.

You know I still aspire to be the 'ents and events' guy for a local paper. Livid that the big leagues ignored me, baffled by the bands that the cool kids all adore and hell-bent on calling your demos 'professional, rocking, competent and tight'. It would be brilliant.

He's written his view of the gig as he saw it and seems to have done it fairly reasonably. He seems to have not liked it and said why he doesn't like it and, whilst most on DiS will disagree with him, he's entitled to his opinion.

You could argue he's the wrong person to review the gig but I can't see why he's being an idiot about it. It wasn't to his taste and he said so. People are still allowed to not like things aren't they?

He talks about the Battles record itself (and indeed how the live show differs from it) which clearly implies he's heard it (and, from what he says, likes it more than the live set). Clearly that implies understanding and context?

Now I'm excited about the rugby. It was better last week getting excited about ATP. Could someone ask Jamie Summers off the internet to start speculating about Minehead weekend so I can make it 'til tomorrow please.

It's hardly as if he doesn't know anything about music. You're assuming he's ignorant 'cos he doesn't like a band you do. There's absolutely nothing I can see in the review - except the prejudice you have from actually liking the band - to back up your statement.

If he couldn't discern one and said so then I don't know why that's a problem.

As bobbygeorge has said he's heard the album, liked it enough to go and review 'em live and been disappointed by what he's seen. That's fair enough in my book.

To my mind a bad review is one where the reviewer in question has already made their mind up they don't like something, has listened to it with the intention of hating it and then talks about how terrible it is. Such as here (not that I'm a huge fan of the song in question myself but I think this is a particularly lousy review of it):

REMEMBER those kids who were always picked last for games at school? Well, they formed a band.

Alas, the New Yorkers have decided to exact revenge by becoming one of those bands that make a reasonable record and decide that, when playing live, it would be better to refrain from interaction with the audience and play music that has no discernable tune, melody or point. [I CANT SEE HOW ANYONE CAN THINK THIS IS A FAIR POINT. SURE, DONT LIKE THEM, THINK THEY ARE BORING OR SHIT OR PRETENSIOUS, BUT YOU MUST BE ABLE TO SEE VALUE IN SOMETHING SO UNIQUE, EVEN IF IT IS PURELY THE ABILITY OF THE MUSICIANS]

By no means an easy proposition on record, live the band dispatched with the concept of entertainment and decided to play guitar solos with no discernable end within a framework best described as 'loose'. [THEY ARE THE OPPOSITE OF LOOSE. THIS GUY SURELY DOESNT THINK THEY ARE JUST JAMMING?]

The only time that a cohesive song came to light was with their most accessible moment, Atlas, and it is no coincidence that this is the single from their album Mirrored.

A capacity crowd showed that there is a market for this kind of atonal noodling, [AHEM] but anyone who had paid money to be entertained must surely have left feeling unsatisfied and more than a little bewildered. [RAPT AUDIENCE, PEOPLE STREAMING OUT SAYING ALL THE USUAL BEST-GI-EVER- TYPE THINGS]

There's nothing wrong with music that is off the wall or even downright strange, but when it is as shapeless and meandering as this, people should vote with their feet and stay away. [I DUNNO WHAT IT IS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BUT IT JUST SCREAMS OF HIM WANTING TO SAY 'why dont they just do some nice songs like Razorlight' BUT YES I ACCEPT THIS IS PROBABLY ME THINKING TOO MUCH]

The stupid attitude some people have that, if someone wants to be entertained at a gig then either

a) they must know nothing about music

b) they must like bland stuff like Keane or Barbara Streisland.

Some points

a) I cannot see how the fuck anyone would equate Keane or Barbara Streisland with entertainment in the first place.

b) The concept of entertaning an audience isn't a dirty word.

I've got no idea whether Battles were entertaning or not, or if they did just play endless guitar solos and not talk to the audience.

But the idea that somoene not being entertained by a band and not being happy about that is equated by some people as meaning a liking for Barbara Streisland or Keane actually really disturbs and angers me.

gig is the opitomy of entertainment. All we're saying is the review is written in a non-objective mannor with little or no evidence of research OR information about the gig.

We're not saying he has to be a fan and write the kind of one sided Battles worship sermon. As was said earlier, it'd be like me going to review the rugby. It's just a bunch of blokes running around a field throwing a oddly shaped ball around isn't it. Is THAT entertainment?

They are from New York, had a single called Atlas and an album called Mirrored. I don't believe for a second he has listened to that album more than maybe a cursory skip through the tracks on their myspace page.

Precisely because reviews can only ever be subjective (and that's fine), the reviewer has a responsibility to acknowledge their own starting point in their write-up - when done skilfully, this should be implicit in the prose. That is, not by saying 'I quite liked the album, but...' or whatever, but instead by using measures and references that are appropriate.

It is never enough for a critic, unless she or he is established enough, to just offer their opinion because then the piece is more about the critic than the work. Why do we care what Lee Hanson says? Most of us could write better than he does; many of us already do!

Secondly, I am growed-up enough to make my own mind about things without worrying too much about reviewers.

However, there is a caveat. This is not to say that it doesn't ever bother me when reviewers dish out the turds for acts I like. When criticism comes from writers who I respect, or who write/articulate in a way I respect, I digest it.

But I think that that's really what the problem is with Lee Hanson - I don't care cos I don't respect him cos he clearly just doesn't get it. And I think this point has been missed by the distracting accusations of 'indie snobbery' and getting uppity cos a review disses your favourite band.

Whether or not Hanson's opinion is valid or not is not at issue, and neither is it a matter of him being 'right' or 'wrong'; it is just clear that the boy Hanson don't get it.

Jimmy HS's rugby commentary analogy is spot on. Round peg, square hole. Although having said all of that, it really is an inappropriately smugly written review. But that actually heightened my enjoyment.

'End of' referred to me being lucid and firm in my opinion - ie not swayed by other reviewers.

And when did I say *you* didn't get it? I said the hack in question (who really really wouldn't deserve this much attention if it were an expertly crafted piece) clearly didn't get it based on his criticism - 'discernable tune, melody or point...' '...cohesive song', and the general vibe of the piece suggest to me that Battles thang was not his from the off.

And as for your little barbed remark at the end, I am not at all of a precious disposition when it comes to my opinion about bands - as I said, it's not an issue of Hanson being right or wrong; it is his opinion, his judgment. It just clearly comes from a perspective of someone who expected something he just isn't going to get from a Battles gig. He may as well have judged them on their clothes.

people are just not used anymore with reviews trying to argue why they didn't enjoy a show.
They want rave review or mockeries.
He made his points.
You can think otherwise, but after all, perceptions are personal.